AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, N.F. Railways as well as Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the referring-claimant respondents.
This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act, in short) from the judgment and award dated 13.06.2016 delivered in Misc.(L.A.)160 of 2013 by the Land Acquisition Judge [Court No.1], Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur. No objection has been raised against the factual matrix, inclusive of the description of the acquired land and the purpose of acquisition. But the solitary objection as has been raised in the appeal is that the LA Judge while determining the land value has failed to consider the factor of comparability vis-a-vis the exemplar deeds being the sale deed No.1-1316 dated 25.06.2008 [Exbt.1] whereby an area of land belonging to Nal class pertaining to the plot No.272(corresponding to the old plot No.156) recorded in Khatian No.206 of Mouja Khilpara measuring .10 acre was sold at Rs.2,20,000/- on 25.06.2008 and the sale deed No.1-1646 dated 23.09.2009 [Exbt.2] whereby an area of land belonging to plot No.2470/3950 recorded in Khatian No.1565 of Mouja Khilpara measuring .04 acre was sold at Rs.1,05,000/-.
The appellants by means of this appeal has challenged the said judgment and award contending that the land value as determined by the L.A. Judge is detrimental inasmuch as the value so determined on the purported deeds is grossly unreasonable and oppressive. The acquired land under reference does not have the similar advantage or potentiality.
The Land Acquisition Judge while determining the land value has inappropriately applied the principle as laid down in Mahrawal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721 inasmuch as "the transaction representing the highest value" has been applied without considering the assessment note of the Land Acquisition Collector whereby it has been categorically observed that on scrutiny of the sale deeds at serial Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10(A) and 10(B) it appeared to the L.A. Collector that lands recited thereon are situated far away from the proposed land to be acquired, so those could not be considered for fixing the rate of land to be acquired. But he has found the deed in serial No.5 bearing No.1-1829 dated 17.11.2009 in respect of a piece of land of Nal class has been found relevant as the land measuring 0.17 is situated in the close proximity of the acquired land and the said land was sold at Rs.1,88,135/-. For purpose of reference, the sale deeds as considered by the L.A. Collector while making the assessment under Section 11 of the L.A. Act are shown with their brief details in the table below:
SL No.
SALE DEED No.
CLASS
AREA IN ACRES
RATE PER KANI
DATE OF REG.
1
1-1580
Bastu/Doba
0.21
Rs.9,66,666/-
30-09- 2009
2
1-1646
Nal
0.04
Rs.10,50,000/-
14-10- 2009
3
1-1048
Viti/Nal
0.05
Rs.12,00,000/-
21-10- 2009
4
1-1651
Viti/Pukurpar
0.07
Rs.12,00,000/-
21-10- 2009
5
1-1829
Nal
0.17
Rs.1,88,235/-
17-11- 2009
6
1-1863
Nal
-
Rs.80,000/-
23-11- 2009
7
1-1469
Nal
0.05
Rs.40,000/-
02-09- 2009
8
1-1563
Chara
0.04
Rs.6,00,000/-
22-09- 2009
9
1-1266
Bastu
0.04
Rs.13,33,333/-
21-07-2009
10
1-1308
Bastu
0.04
Rs.18,08,863/-
29-07- 2009
*A
1-153
Nal
0.10
Rs.10,00,000/-
22-01- 2009
*B
1-2307
Bastu(Nal)
0.01
Rs.40,00,000/-
28-11- 2008
Relying on those sale deeds [Exbts.1 and 2] the L.A. Judge has relied on a decision of the apex court in Subhram and Others versus State of Haryana and Another reported in (2010) 1 SCC 444 to deduct 33% from the land value i.e. Rs.10,50,000/-and the rate after deduction has been determined for the acquired land at Rs.7,00,000/- per kani.
Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that in respect of the acquired land under the same notification under No.F.9(4)-REV/ACQ/IX/2010 dated 28.01.2010, this court has decided the land value in a series of appeals by the judgment dated 27.08.2018 delivered in L.A.App.Nos.07, 09, 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of 2017 and the cross-objection being CO(FA)06 of 2018. In that judgment, this court had reduced the enhanced rate of Rs.7,50,000/- per kani to Rs.6,00,000/- per kani.
Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the referring-claimant respondents has stated that there is no infirmity in determination of the land rate in the case in hand and as such, no interference is called for. He has submitted that the Land Acquisition Judge, however did not give much importance on the advantages attached to those acquired land for its proximity to the municipal area of Udaipur town.
Having appreciated the submission of the counsel for the parties as well as the judgment as referred this court finds that there is some substance in the submission of the learned counsel of the appellant. As such, this court is of the view that the land value should be reduced to Rs.6,30,000/- per kani on accepting the analogy as given by this court in the judgment and order dated 17.02.2020 delivered in L.A.App. No.18 of 2017 [The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) versus Kala Miah & Others] where the similar objection was taken on the value of a proximate land. It is therefore held that the referring- claimant respondents are entitled to the land rate at Rs.6,30,000/- per kani and on the basis of that rate, the compensation be assessed as per provision of section 23 of the L.A. Act. With the land value, solatium at 30% under Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act and additional compensation at 12% under Section 23(1A) of the L.A. Act be added to have basic compensation in the case in hand. It is further held that interest on the said compensation be paid to the referring-claimants as per provisions of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said compensation, having been quantified in the manner as stated above, be paid within a period of 4 (four) months from the date when the referring-claimants shall produce a copy of this judgment and order.
In terms of the above, this appeal stands allowed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.